Re: Image size for CiC

I can never get to the bottom of this and it varies on different forums. This share link from Flickr is 8000px wide. If you click on the image you go to the lightbox, or you can click on the photo name and go to Flickr image, or click on name to go to Flickr profile. On some forums using the share link disables the lightbox, but not here!

Re: Image size for CiC

My Suggestion is to post them 1200 x 800 pixels, and host them on an external site like pbase or flickr. Our browsers will reduce them for inline display, but give us the option of clicking on them for a MUCH larger view.

It's actually becomming a bit of a problem ... back in the good old days, a 700px wide image looked fantastic on a 800 x 600px monitor - but these days many monitors are 1920 x 1080px and I've reached a point where I just don't find 700px images appealing - nor can I properly critique them. Times have changed folks - I think we need to change with them. So for me personally, it's 1200 x 800 saved at 10/12 for about a 500kb sized photo.

Re: Image size for CiC

Thank you for the answers.
I still miss something here, for sure. Pictures with sizes within the same range (and relatively small) look very different on the screen, when opened by a click of the mouse. Let’s take the link sent by Rob, for example https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/for....htm#post34382 : what makes the first picture (boat races) to look much bigger on the screen when click on it, compared with the second picture (the tube)?
Such difference can be seen to other pictures on the mentioned link and I remember I noticed that in mini competitions as well…

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Thank you for the answers.
I still miss something here, for sure. Pictures with sizes within the same range (and relatively small) look very different on the screen, when opened by a click of the mouse. Let’s take the link sent by Rob, for example https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/for....htm#post34382 : what makes the first picture (boat races) to look much bigger on the screen when click on it, compared with the second picture (the tube)?
Such difference can be seen to other pictures on the mentioned link and I remember I noticed that in mini competitions as well…

Gabriel

Gabriel

You got that link wrong. It should be this HELP THREAD: How can I post images here? If you need a specific link like that just click on the post number then cut and paste the link address in the address bar at the top of the page.

The boat goes bigger when clicked because the file originally uploaded is 1600 pixels wide. So clicking on it shows it at that size. The tube shot original file was only about 700 pixels, so it looks no larger when clicked because that is the size that all images on here are rescaled to.

If you use Firefox browser you can right-click any image and select 'view image info' and it will give you the rescaled and the original sizes. You can't do that on Internet Explorer though.

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by MrB

What does this (underlined by me) part mean, please Colin?

Philip

I think he means the image quality level in Photoshop. 12 being the best, but 10 is pretty good for web viewing. The level also determines the file size - 12 will produce the biggest file. A 10 might be say 400kb for an upload file but a 12 might be 500kb.

Re: Image size for CiC

Uploading, or linking, images on this site appears to be full of anomalies. For instance, that first photo of Rob's (Ferryside) looks excessively over sharpened on my monitor, but the second one is perfect.

I usually find that my images on P base look fine there (at 800 pixels) but if I transfer them here, by copy and past of a link, they always seem much softer. Which is probably because they are over the 150 Kb size.

Now, for direct inclusion, I resize them to 650 pixels on the long side and set a Jpeg compression to go just below 150 Kb. Which does seem to work better. Incidentally, a little Unsharp Mask after substantial downsizing is usually a great help.

And, another strange result, since I have been using CS5 I find that I am getting sharper photos here than when I used Photo Plus; although the adjustments are the same.

I think the 10/12 bit, Philip, refers to the Jpeg compression. Which is around 80% in other software. But I seem to get better results, on the straight inserted images, by using a slightly greater compression when needed to get me below the 150 size than using Colin's 10/12; which I also use elsewhere.

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by Geoff F

For instance, that first photo of Rob's (Ferryside) looks excessively over sharpened on my monitor, but the second one is perfect.

It is looking very oversharpened. I think it's because the upload file was 8,000 pixels and the rescaling on CiC can't handle the relative difference down to 700 all that well. Interestingly, when you click on that one it doesn't expand very much (looks like about 1600px) maybe there is a finite limit?

The second one of mine is actually only 1024 on upload. This one below is 1600px. Not sure if it looks any better.

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Incidentally, a little Unsharp Mask after substantial downsizing is usually a great help.

It does. And you can also do it on Flickr using Picnic editing. If you have a Pro account there is even a USM option.

Re: Image size for CiC

That's clear: I still have to learn. That was a large picture uploaded in my gallery. Yet, it can't be shown on full screen when click on it. It was probably downsized by uploaded to gallery. As I said: I still have to learn.

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by rob marshall

I think he means the image quality level in Photoshop. 12 being the best, but 10 is pretty good for web viewing. The level also determines the file size - 12 will produce the biggest file. A 10 might be say 400kb for an upload file but a 12 might be 500kb.

And if you're a GIMP user, it's expressed in percentage terms. Everything I present on here is saved at 95%

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by Gabriel

That's clear: I still have to learn. That was a large picture uploaded in my gallery. Yet, it can't be shown on full screen when click on it. It was probably downsized by uploaded to gallery. As I said: I still have to learn.

G.

That one is 700px. So it won't get rescaled because it's already 700px which is the CiC size, so it won't look any larger when you look at it in the lightbox (when you click on it). Try posting one at 1200px if you can.

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by rob marshall

That one is 700px. So it won't get rescaled because it's already 700px which is the CiC size, so it won't look any larger when you look at it in the lightbox (when you click on it). Try posting one at 1200px if you can.

Gabriel,

You cannot host a picture at CiC larger than 700px, even of a cute pet; if you try, it will be downsized and saved here at 700px only, so won't get any bigger when clicked.

If you want to see it bigger, use option A (TinyPic) or option D (direct linking from external hosting).

With option A the limit is TinyPic's 1600px on longest edge, if you try to upload more, it just gets downsized and saved as 1599px.

With option D, the limit is whatever you hosting site has; often none - afterall, you're probably paying them a few dollars a year for it, so they can afford to be generous

To all readers:
If you want everyone to see an image at its best;
*1: Don't make it more than 1000px tall
*2: Don't make it more than say, 1600px wide
(that way it'll fit more people's monitors)
*3: Do downsize it yourself and USM at 100% 0.3px afterwards before saving and uploading using option A or option D
*4: Never use a hosting site's automatically generated smaller size image, it will always be sub-standard. Take control; downsize to what you want and display here and use the original/'full' size image link

The key to success is;
a) taking full control, don't be lazy and use auto generated images or let anything downsize for you, and
b) be aware of browser issues and guide people to do the right thing, which may be as simple as stating below an image "F11 and click image to see at 1,600px × 1,000px"

If you think it's all to complicated, here's a confession;
Even I still make occasional mistakes and recently posted an image at 1080 tall, so the Lytebox cannot fit it all in (even on my 1080 tall monitor), the only way to see it sharp is view it in a separate window/tab and enlarge it there.

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by Geoff F

I usually find that my images on P base look fine there (at 800 pixels) but if I transfer them here, by copy and past of a link, they always seem much softer. Which is probably because they are over the 150 Kb size.

Hi Geoff,

They will if you don't click on them and view in Lytebox, but maybe also because you're using the PBase auto-produced 800px size. It is always best to downsize yourself to the size you want to display and only use the "original.jpg" link; never one of the "small.jpg", "medium.jpg" or even "large.jpg".

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Now, for direct inclusion, I resize them to 650 pixels on the long side and set a Jpeg compression to go just below 150 Kb. Which does seem to work better.

If you're externally hosting, the 150kB limit is irrelevant, I agree 650, or upto 700px, will look better if the viewer doesn't bother to click the image.

Another thing for everyone to bear in mind is that ANY browser zoom is a very bad thing; always use keyboard Ctrl + 0 (zero) to reset to 1:1 before assessing sharpeness, or you'll seriously mislead yourselves.

Also, always hit F11 to toggle full screen mode on the browser, or the Lytebox won't have enough space to scale to 100%, meaning the image may look soft.

Personally; I found no quality improvement above 9/12 or 75% (when I did critical comparisons a few years back), but the files still get bigger!

Re: Image size for CiC

Originally Posted by rob marshall

It is looking very oversharpened. I think it's because the upload file was 8,000 pixels and the rescaling on CiC can't handle the relative difference down to 700 all that well. Interestingly, when you click on that one it doesn't expand very much (looks like about 1600px) maybe there is a finite limit?

Another downside of pictures that large is that they make scrolling through the thread quite cumbersome on older computers. This is because CiC isn't realy resizing the picture, it just tells your browser to scale the picture down. So the cpu-load is for the client computer, not the webserver on which CiC runs.